Henderson v. Md. Transit Admin.

1

WILLIAM HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, et al. Defendants.

CIVIL No. 1:23-cv-01267-JRR

United States District Court, D. Maryland

March 1, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Julie R. Rubin United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on Defendants Maryland Transit Administration (“MTA”), Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), and the State of Maryland's (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 18; the “Motion.”) The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2023).

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiff William Henderson filed this action alleging Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him during his employment at MTA in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C §§ 2000e, et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (“ADEA”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that MDOT and the State of Maryland are vicariously liable for the actions of MTA because MTA is a division of MDOT and a Department of the State of Maryland. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff is a 70-year-old African American male who has been working at MTA for many years. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7.) Kent Bell, a younger Caucasian male, is Plaintiff's supervisor at MTA. Id. ¶ 9. Between July and October 2021, Bell got angry with Plaintiff on several occasions. Id. ¶¶ 9-20. On or about October 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Office of Equal Opportunity Compliance Programs (“OEOCP”),^[2]an entity within MTA, because of Bell's behavior and actions towards him. Id. ¶ 21. Following Plaintiff's EEOC complaint, Bell continued to scream at him and required him to do assignments he was not trained to do. Id. ¶¶ 23-24.

In or around August 2022, Plaintiff was notified that he needed to change his work schedule to report to the first shift. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 25.) On or about August 31, 2022, Plaintiff missed work due to carbon monoxide poisoning and was written up for not showing up. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff informed Bell that he was not cleared to work (or return to work at all), but Bell said he did not believe Plaintiff that he was not cleared to work. Id. ¶ 31. As of the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff was not cleared to return to work and had undergone surgical procedures from which he had not fully recovered.^[3]Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff continues to experience stress from Bell's conduct. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 33.) On or about November 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed charges with the EEOC for retaliation and discrimination on the basis of race and age. Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff alleges that he received a Right to Sue letter on February 14, 2023. Id. ¶ 6.

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) The Complaint sets forth four counts: (I) Race Discrimination in violation of Title VII; (II) Age Discrimination in violation of the ADEA; (III) Retaliation in violation of Title VII; and (IV) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”). (ECF No. 1 at 6-12.) Plaintiff seeks: (i) declaration that Defendants engaged in age and race discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) attorney's fees and expenses; and (iv) any other relief the court deems just and proper. Id. at 13.

Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for various reasons: (1) Plaintiff's ADEA and IIED claims are barred by sovereign immunity; (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (3) the Title VII and ADEA claims are untimely; (4) Defendants MDOT and the State were not Plaintiff's employer; and (4) as to all counts, Plaintiff fails to state a claim. (ECF No. 18-1 at 6-28.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

“Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Barnett v. United States, 193 F.Supp.3d 515, 518 (D. Md. 2016). “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. Trump, 416 F.Supp.3d 452, 479 (D. Md. 2019). Subject matter jurisdiction challenges may proceed in two ways: a facial challenge or a factual challenge. Id. A facial challenge asserts “that the allegations pleaded in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. A factual challenge asserts “that the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint [are] not true.” Id. (quoting Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009)). “In a facial challenge, ‘the facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true, and the motion must be denied if the complaint alleges sufficient facts to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.'” Trump, 416 F.Supp.3d at 479 (quoting Kerns, 585 F.3d at 192 (instructing that in a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction the plaintiff enjoys “the same procedural protection as . . . under a Rule 12(b)(6) consideration.”)). “[I]n a factual challenge, ‘the district court is entitled to decide disputed issues of fact with respect to subject matter jurisdiction.'” Id.

Defendants raise a facial challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars Counts II and IV.^[4] The defense of sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar, because “sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims, and a court finding that a party is entitled to sovereign immunity must dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Cunningham v. General Dynamics Info. Tech., 888 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Ackerson v. Bean Dredging LLC, 589 F.3d 196, 207 (5th Cir. 2009)). Because sovereign immunity is akin to an affirmative defense, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that sovereign immunity exists. Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 773 F.3d 536, 543 (4th Cir. 2014).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. It does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4^th Cir. 2006) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4^th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, a “Rule 12(b)(6) motion should only be granted if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.” Edwards, 178 F.3d at 244 (citing Republican Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4^th Cir. 1992)).

“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). “A complaint that provides no more than ‘labels and conclusions,' or ‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,' is insufficient.” Bourgeois v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., 3 F.Supp.3d 423, 434 (D. Md. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “The [c]ourt must be able to deduce ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct'; the facts of the complaint, accepted as true, must demonstrate that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Evans v. 7520 Surratts Rd. Operations, LLC, No. PX-21-1637, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221041, at *4 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2021) (quoting Ruffin v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 126 F.Supp.3d 521, 526 (D. Md. 2015)).

III. CONSIDERATION OF EXHIBITS

Defendants attach four exhibits to their Motion: Exhibit 1 - Affidavit of Bart Plano (ECF No. 18-2); Exhibit 2 - February 14, 2023, Notice of Charge of Discrimination sent to Bart Plano (ECF No. 18-3); Exhibit 3 - Notice of Right to Sue (ECF No. 18-4); and Exhibit 4 - Charge of Discrimination. (ECF No. 18-5.)

As detailed above, Defendants raise a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff enjoys the procedural protections afforded by a 12(b)(6) motion. In ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court usually does not consider evidence outside of the complaint. A court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss if the document is “integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and [if] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.” Am Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc. v. Trigon Healthcare Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Phillips v. LCI Int'l Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999)). “An integral document is a document that by its ‘very existence, and not the mere information it contains, gives rise to the legal rights asserted.'” Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC, 794 F.Supp.2d. 602, 611 (D. Md. 2011) (quoting Walker v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 517 F.Supp.2d 801, 806 (E.D. Va. 2007)). “In addition to integral and authentic exhibits, on a 12(b)(6) motion the court ‘may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record.'” Id. (quoting Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009)). Specifically, the court may take judicial notice of publicly available information on state and federal government websites without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. See U.S. v. Garcia, 855 F.3d 615, 621 (4th Cir. 2017) (“This court and numerous others routinely take judicial notice of information contained on the state and federal...